Shaik Khader Avulia vs Smt. Prasanna Lakshmi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4998 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                 CONTEMPT CASE NO.427 OF 2021

ORDER:

This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the petitioner - Shaik Khader

Avulia to punish the contemnors - respondents for wilful and

deliberate disobedience of the orders dated 16.10.2020 passed by

this Court in W.P.No.18895 of 2020.

The petitioner filed writ petition No.18895 of 2020

questioning the action of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not

mutating the petitioner‟s name in all the Revenue Records and

issuance of e-pattadar passbook and Title Deeds, Adangals and

other necessary Revenue Records in respect of the land to an

extent of Ac.5.77 cetns in Sy.Nos.18/1A and 18/2A of Jeelugumilli

Village and Mandal, West Godavari District in spite of the

Application No.TARM0012003866570 made through Mee-Seva on

03.02.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure

contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and

Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and consequently direct the

respondent Nos.3 and 4 to mutate the name of the petitioner in

the said records for said land.

This Court, on concession made by learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue, who agreed to dispose of the

online application submitted through Mee-seva, if any pending

with the revenue department, issued a direction to dispose of the

Online application No.TARM0012003866570 within four (4) weeks

from the date of order i.e. on 16.10.2020. Despite the order passed

by this Court, Tahsildar did not comply with the direction issued

MSM,J cc_427_2021

by this Court. Thereupon, the petitioner issued a notice dated

19.12.2020 to the Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli Village informing about

the order passed by this Court annexing a copy of the order passed

in W.P.No.18895 of 2020. Copy of notice dated 19.12.2020 is

placed on record. Even after issuing notice, the Tahsildar

concerned did not dispose of the Online application submitted by

the petitioner dated 03.02.2020. Thus, failure of Tahsildar would

amount to deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court,

requested to punish the contemnors.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counters with identical

contentions questioning the title to the property. It is further

contended that the Online application of the petitioner was

disposed of on 27.03.2020 even before passing of order by this

Court. Therefore, the question of violation of order of this Court

does not arise, requested to dismiss the contempt proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that

issue of notice dated 21.12.2020 by the Tahsildar to the petitioner

calling upon the petitioner to appear before him along with records

is suffice to conclude that respondent No.2 herein, Tahsildar did

not comply the direction issued by this Court on 16.10.2020,

thereby the question of disposal of the request of the petitioner

even before passing of order by this Court does not arise. The

order, if any, placed on record is a manipulation to avoid contempt

proceedings, requested to punish the contemnor - Tahsildar in

accordance with law.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Tahsildar supported

the action of respondent No.2 and contended that the question of

disposal of application of the petitioner in pursuance of the

MSM,J cc_427_2021

direction issued by this Court does not arise as it was disposed of

before passing of order by this Court.

In view of the rival contentions, it is necessary to advert to

the material on record to decide whether the application of the

petitioner was disposed of by respondent No.2 herein - Tahsildar

as contended by the contemnor? If not, whether the failure of

respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order in pursuance of the

direction issued by this Court on 16.10.2020 would amount to

wilful disobedience of the order?

This Court passed order dated 16.10.2020 directing the

respondents to dispose of the online application

No.TARM0012003866570 submitted by the petitioner on

03.02.2020, in accordance with law, within four (4) weeks from the

date of order. Surprisingly, Learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Revenue himself submitted to the Court that the Revenue

Department is ready to dispose of the application, if any pending.

The said direction was issued by this Court on 16.10.020

only on the basis of concession by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue. After passing the order on

16.10.2020, the petitioner issued notice dated 19.12.2020 to the

Tahsildar annexing the copy of the order passed by this Court, and

requested to dispose of the application of the petitioner. But no

order was passed despite the notice issued by the petitioner.

Thereafter, the Tahsildar issued a notice dated 21.12.2020 calling

upon the petitioner to appear before him along with tax receipts

and other original records to prove his case. If really, the

application of the petitioner was disposed of on 27.03.2020 prior to

passing the order by this Court on 16.10.2020, question of issuing

MSM,J cc_427_2021

notice on 21.12.2020 does not arise. Issue of notice by the

Tahsildar is a positive proof that the Tahsildar did not pass any

order in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court or even

prior to passing of order by this Court. It appears that the order

allegedly passed by the Tahsildar rejecting the request of the

petitioner is an afterthought. Stooping to such an extent of

creating document i.e. disposing of the application of the petitioner

is a deliberate and intentional violation of the order by fabricating

the document somehow to escape from the contempt proceedings

and to cover up the latches. Such conduct of the public officer is

deprecable, it is nothing but playing fraud on Court.

When the Court finds that the contemnor is guilty of

disobeying direction issued by this Court intentionally, the Court

can impose penalty against a person, who wilfully disobeyed the

order of this Court. In the present case, this Court issued a

direction to dispose of the online application of the petitioner, but

the Tahsildar did not dispose of the application of the petitioner.

However, when notice dated 19.12.2020 was issued by the

petitioner, strangely a specific contention is raised before this

Court that the online application was disposed of on 27.03.2020

even before passing the order by this Court. Very issuance of

notice 21.12.2020 by the Tahsildar is suffice to conclude that the

order is fabricated for the purpose of avoiding the contempt

proceedings.

In "Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and Others. v. Dharam

Godha And Others1" the Supreme Court examined the provision

of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that defines the

AIR 2004 SC 105

MSM,J cc_427_2021

term civil contempt and held that the term „Willful‟ under Section

2(b) means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and

intentionally and with the specific intent to do something while the

law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the

law requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to

disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done

with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose. Therefore, in order

to constitute contempt the order of the Court must be of such a

nature which is capable of execution by the person charged in

normal circumstances. It should not require any extra ordinary

effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any

act or omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be

judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

In the present case, a simple direction was issued by this

Court on 16.10.2020 in the writ petition to dispose of the Online

application submitted by the petitioner within four (4) weeks from

the date of order. Four weeks time was expired by 16.11.2020,

whereas notice was issued by the Tahsildar on 21.12.2020 i.e.

almost after five (5) weeks from the date fixed for compliance of the

direction. Very issuance of notice dated 21.12.2020 by the

Tahsildar is suffice to conclude that no order was passed by such

date. When contempt case is filed, a strange contention is raised

that the application of the petitioner was disposed of on

27.03.2020. The said notice is suffice to conclude that the

Tahsildar wilfully with an intention to avoid contempt proceedings

fabricated the order dated 27.03.2020. This itself is contempt of

MSM,J cc_427_2021

Court as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971.

In "A. Badhrachalam v. Dr. K. Sathyagopal2", the Madras

High Court made an attempt to decide the issue as to what

amounts to contempt where the contempt was filed beyond the

limitation of one year. But the Court noted the principle laid down

in "Morris v. Crown Office3", where Lord Dening wrote that, "Of

all the places where law and order must be maintained, it is here

in these Courts. The Courts of Justice must not be deflected or

interfered with. Those who strike at it, strike at the very

foundations of our society." "To maintain Law and Order, the

Judges have, and must have, power at once to deal with those who

offend against it" " It is a great power - a power instantly to

imprison a person without trial - but it is a necessary power".

Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers every High

Court to punish contempt of Court subordinate to it, but Contempt

of Courts Act lays down how that power is to be exercised. Article

215 and provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act have to be read

together. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has emphasized that Section

20 applies to civil and criminal contempts and would also apply to

the contempt committed on the face of High Court or the Supreme

Court or even Subordinate Courts. Where there is a limitation for

initiation of proceedings of contempt under Section 20 of the

Act, the Rules of Code provide that no notice shall be issued if

more than one year has lapsed from the alleged act of contempt.

C.C.No.2497 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019

(1970) 1 All ER 1079 at 1081

MSM,J cc_427_2021

Thus, from the principles laid down in the above judgment

referred supra, it is for the Court to implement its order, since it is

the first place where the order is to be implemented, otherwise it

would defeat the purpose of passing the order by this Court.

The purpose of law of contempt is to protect the machinery

of justice and the interests of the public in order to protect these

dual interests, unwarranted interference with administration of

justice must be prevented. The power to punish for contempt is

conferred on Courts for two reasons. Firstly, that the Courts may

be armed with the power to enforce their orders, Secondly, they

may be able to punish obstructor to the administration of justice.

To ensure these objectives, there are also constitutional provisions

dealing with contempt of Courts, apart from Contempt of Courts

Act. Under Article 215 of the Constitution of India a Court of

record is a Court, the records of which are admitted to be

evidentiary value and not to be questioned when produced before

any Court. Such a Court enjoys a power to punish for contempt as

its inherent jurisdiction. The impression created by the Court is

that even if Article 129 and 215 were not there in Constitution the

contempt powers of Courts of record would have been preserved.

However the High Courts have to exercise his powers keeping in

mind Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act.

In "Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. and Others4", the

Supreme Court once again declared that the powers of contempt

are inherent in nature and the provisions of the Constitution only

recognize the said pre-existing situation. That the provisions of

(2001) 1 SCC 516

MSM,J cc_427_2021

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are in addition to and not in

derogation of Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution. The

provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 cannot be used for

limiting or regulating the exercise of jurisdiction contemplated by

the said two Articles. The Apex Court also made further

observation that, the High Court cannot create or assume power to

inflict a new type of punishment other than the one recognized and

accepted by Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

In the present case, the contention of respondent No.2 that

the application of the petitioner was disposed of on 27.03.2020 is a

deliberate attempt to avoid contempt proceedings. But, the

person(s) who violated the order of this Court must be dealt with

sternly by the Court for wilful disobedience of the direction issued

by this Court, if not exercised though circumstance warrants, the

Court will remain as paper tiger. Therefore I find that respondent

No.2 is guilty of contempt of court proceedings as he deliberately

and wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court passed in

W.P.No.18895 of 2020. Consequently, respondent No.2 is liable for

punishment.

In the result, contempt case is allowed, sentencing

respondent No.2/Tahsildar to undergo imprisonment for a period

of two (2) months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two

thousands only), for violating the order of this Court wilfully,

within two weeks from the date of this order. In default of payment

of fine, respondent No.2/Tahsildar shall undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month. The said amount of fine

MSM,J cc_427_2021

be borne by the contemnor from his/her pocket, but not from the

public exchequer.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 07.12.2021 Ksp

After pronouncing the above order, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 - Tahsildar requested this Court to suspend the

above order, so as to enable him to prefer an appeal.

At the request of the learned counsel for respondent No.2,

the above order is suspended for a period of three (3) weeks to

prefer an appeal, in case no appeal is preferred or no stay is

granted by the Appellate Court in the appeal, if any preferred, the

second respondent/contemnor shall surrender before Registrar

(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 29.12.2021 before

05.00 p.m. to undergo sentence.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 07.12.2021 Ksp